My Eyes Are Up Here

Are you are tired of getting the “once over” when you are walking down the street, on the job, or at the grocery store? Have you considered buying one of those t-shirts with “my eyes are up here” plastered over the bust? If so, you are not alone.

In recent interviews promoting her new book, Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection, Barnard President, Debora Spar offered an explanation on why she sought breast reduction surgery in her 20’s. During her professional interactions, instead of focusing on her face and what she was saying, she noticed other people focusing a little lower on her body. She believed that this focus on her breasts would be a significant impediment to her career. Although some might consider surgery an extreme measure to avoid being objectified, recent research using eye tracking technology suggests that women have reason to be concerned.

In a study that I published in Sex Roles with Arianne Holland and Dr. Michael Dodd at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, we examined predictors of the objectifying gaze. Yes, that’s right, we scientifically examined “ogling.”

Technological advances made it possible to carefully document the objectifying gaze through eye tracking—a device that can be used to monitor people’s eye movements as they look at women—how long they look, how often they return their gaze to, and where they first look.

In the study, we asked a small sample of undergraduate men and women to look at women’s bodies with one of two goals: to evaluate their appearance or their personality. We also modified the women’s bodies so that we had a range of shapes with some representing cultural ideals of beauty—having hourglass figures with larger breasts and smaller waists—and some that did not. Instead of including models or actors (think Kim Kardashian or Sofia Vergara) we used pictures of everyday college women with similar dress and neutral expressions.

Monitoring their roving eyes with the eye tracker, we found some of the first evidence mapping onto women’s accounts of objectification. When people were appearance focused, they tended to focus more on women’s bodies than when they were personality focused. Similarly, focusing on appearance (vs. personality) contributed to less attention to the faces. People were also particularly likely to dwell on the bodies of women with hourglass shaped figures.

Now before you chalk this study up to “common sense,” let me highlight a few surprising discoveries from the study that paint a more optimistic picture of objectification.

Overall, people focused on women’s faces more than their bodies and focusing people’s attention on the personalities of women further reduced the objectifying gaze.

Unlike popular accounts of the objectifying gaze, men were not completely to blame. In this study, both men and women gazed at women’s bodies for longer periods of time and their faces less when their goal was to evaluate women’s appearances.

However, compared to women participants, men did show an increased tendency to more quickly first fixate on women’s bodies. Men also provided more positive personality evaluations of hourglass shaped women whereas women’s personality ratings did not depend on whether the bodies were attractive or not.

Although this is an initial study that needs to be replicated with larger and more diverse samples, this work offers some important glimpses into when people exhibit the objectifying gaze and what it looks like. We also know from other research that a focus on the body is associated with less perceived intelligence and competence (Loughnan et al., 2010; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009) and more aggressive behaviors (Gervais, DiLillo, & McChargue, 2013) toward women.

Consistent with Spar’s accounts, objectifying gazes communicate to women that they are being seen as sex objects rather than people (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Not surprisingly, the objectifying gaze has several negative consequences for women such as making them anxious about their appearance (Calogero, 2004), decreasing their work performance (Gervais, Vescio, & Allen, 2011), and making them feel like they should speak up less (Saguy, Quinn, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2010).

So, all you guys and gals out there, if you notice your eyes meandering to places they shouldn’t be, remind yourself that you are interacting with another human being with a personality and hopefully your roving eyes will follow suit.

I suppose it only stands to figure that authoritarian totalitarian feminazi science would eventually get around to trying to control what men look at. I mean, until chips can be installed in everyone's brains to monitor thoughts.

In America and Europe, men's libidos are constantly being aggravated and stimulated. Soda and beer ads, short skirts, cleavage revealing tight tops, magazine covers, all ruthlessly stimulate his sex. His relentless exposure to things feminine keeps him in a constant state of sexual arousal -- a testosterone nightmare of cruel pervasiveness which is not known in "primitive" cultures.
- Rich Zubaty

Be sure to fully document this gyno-gulag's sex-psych-torture regime and it's corrupt practices.

"In America and Europe, men's libidos are constantly being aggravated and stimulated. Soda and beer ads, short skirts, cleavage revealing tight tops, magazine covers, all ruthlessly stimulate his sex."
And this is harmful TO MEN?
This makes women feel like shit about themselves and their bodies.
No one likes to feel like their bodies are sex objects.
It's part of the objectification.
Stop acting like the victim.

Wow. What world do you live in? Plenty of people would like people to see them as beautiful and sexy, would like others to immediately notice that about them when they meet, and do not "feel like shit about themselves" just because other people find them sexy.

a study on the gazing of women on men and the perceptions thereof. I am male and notice with regularity women giving me the once over. Possibly they are attempting to evaluate me based on my fashion choices or how put together I am? I feel as if they may be trying to determine my status based on the shoes I am wearing.

Women ogle men's bodies too. So I'm thoroughly disappointed that this article and this study has completely turned a blind eye to this. Women are not that innocent. We objectify too (and we most certainly don't just objectify other women). Sure, a woman could admire your outfit. But she's just as likely to be examining how strong you look or whether you have a cute butt.

Yes!
I've finally found a commonality in all the posts.
Anonymous who posted about women trying to determine his status based on the shoes he is wearing, and another poster who wrote about men walking with averted eyes, staring down at the ground, all point to a hidden paraphilia.
Podophilia.
Yes, it's true. The nefarious, obscene and disgusting foot-fetish has finally been outed.
Yep. Clever men hide their podophile tendencies by overtly staring at women's breasts and genital areas as a cover, while they take sneak peeps at women's feet. Men who walk with averted eyes, looking at the ground, use this false-modesty ploy to cover their own lascivious feet-sneak-peep tendencies. And shoe-staring-sirens feel able to justify their podophile paraphilias under cover of status-checking.
Its all clear now.
Time to start a new social movement called Foolish - Foot Or Other Lascivious Incriminating Sexual Habit.

This study and this article represents a lot of what is wrong in Psychological research today. It seems to me that it is a clear attempt to sensationalise the 'bleeding' obvious, all the while ignoring the truly obvious. The article and the study are clearly written from a feminist standpoint and this should be stated from the outset, so as not to blind the reader to the fact that the 'evidence' presented is both largely subjective and possibly biased. Using phrases like 'meandering to places they shouldn’t be' assumes that there is something inherrently wrong with both men and women looking at each other; men and women have been looking at each other since the cave (or the garden, whichever you prefer) and to now look at this behaviour as somehow 'wrong', based on modern social constructs is, honestly, nonsensical.

Secondly, there is so much subjectivity involved in the gazing preocess, it is virtually impossible for the researchers to say with any authority that participants were evaluating personality or appearance. For that matter, it is not possible for a picture of woman to tell how being looked at feels or how it percieves the gaze of another. There are too many variables to be able to make these assumptions.

Finally, neither evolution or the qualification that the said gaze is being percieved as objectifying are mentioned. We look at each other's bodies for a reason, I would hazard that this reason is as old as time and has quite a reasonable evolutionary explanation. However, how we percieve being look at has changed through the ages and I imagine it changes by the minute.

I'm kind of wary of the statement: "if you notice your eyes meandering to places they shouldn't be" - because I think most people who do that don't notice it happening as I see it more often as an unconscious act.

Also, the study seems to imply that while gazing at the body is sexually objectifying, gazing at the face is not. While I'm not suggesting that the face is the primary mode of sexual objectification, I think it deserves some attention nonetheless. While I've heard men talk about women's bodies, I've heard women talk about men's handsome faces. Could that perhaps suggest some sort of objectification? Could it be that men and women actually gaze at the opposite sex with the same frequency but in different ways not explored by this study because the researchers are biased to view "the gaze" in a specifically male way?

Finally, I'd like to see studies like this conducted with more gender balance (or "equality" if you prefer). Why should the subject of objectifying gaze be primarily women? With a lack of studies, it's hard to know the impact of the "female gaze" on men. For all we know, objectifying gazes on men could be just as damaging, but in ways not yet explored by researchers and different from those experienced by women.

Now I agree with this study about men gazing and ogling at women. It is rude when they are staring at your chest when talking, however it's not all the men's fault. Women nowadays dress provocatively with mini skirts or short shorts, and low cut tops. And yet they complain about guys staring? Of course they're going to look. If you saw an unwrapped present with your name on it, will you not look? Some of you will say no, and honestly mean it, just like some guys will not look, although it proves difficult for them.
This is a very feminist study here. It's seeming to point all guilt on men, and how they are "perverts" or whatever label you wish to use. But if you really think about it, women are not much different. We look too. I am guilty of it, I do look, although, I have enough respect towards men to not stare, and actually make eye contact when speaking. There should have been a test like this, but with pictures of males and testing where women, and men, look too. With psychology, you have to have both sides with men and women. It's not just men that ogle, I see women do this as well.

How scary. Those damn feminists are telling me I deserve respect again. Omg they're telling me I might be valuable for somthing besides my breasts or my mothering ability. Dam them. I like being a barbie doll for my man instead, less demanding. And he likes me that way too. Teeheehee

Yes, I'm really a woman. It's interesting that you not only deny me agency and invalidate my experiences, but you go so far as to question my gender. A real woman would never disagree with you, and therefore I must not be a real woman? Typical feminist shaming and invalidation.

I'm interested your accusation that I seem angry. Is this a way of negating my arguments? If I'm angry, then you don't need to consider my points or present a logical case against them, is that the idea?

(Hey, Mike, thanks for the support. I don't feel like I've displayed anger here either. But maybe feminists use 'anger' as a code word for 'statements that I don't like, but which I can't think of any logical argument against.')

Well, also anonymous Bimbo seems to have nailed it.
I'm a male chauvinist pig so I don't learn nothing from no broad but let me see what I could learn from also anonymous' latest post.

Her responses have been temperate and on point.

For a starter, the dumb broad does not demand respect. She earns it, and plenty of it, by her equanimity and allowing others to be what they want, without demanding that they act or believe in accordance with her values.

She graciously reminds you, that, yes, she's really a woman. No gratuitous offence was taken by her in response to your slur on her gender of femininity. She gently points put that it's interesting that you not only deny her agency and invalidate her experiences, but you go so far as to question her gender. Her pointing this out was offered without rancour or anger (despite your earlier imputing anger to her - probably your projection). She assumes that your stance stems from the fact that: "A real woman would never disagree with you, and therefore I must not be a real woman? " and responds, perhaps with some anger here, that your words represent what is often typical feminist shaming and invalidation. Perhaps despite her apparent equanimity, your words were shaming. They certainly did invalidate her experience.

Her point about your response to her was your denial of her agency, the very thing feminists have fought for for so long, that women have agency.

Her next paragraph is prescient and is offered again with no rancour: "I'm interested your accusation that I seem angry. Is this a way of negating my arguments? If I'm angry, then you don't need to consider my points or present a logical case against them, is that the idea?"

The best learning for me here is her modelling of lots of positive and socially desirable elements, not the least of which is staying clear of demanding that you be like her, unlike your demands, implied and express, that she conform to your ideas and values.

Don't be sold because she's got my respect.
Be sold by her words, her dignity, her lack of victim identity, her openness, her sense of humour, her graciousness and a whole host of other attributes that are clear from what she writes.
And, if you see her as a good little woman, why, that speaks of your assessment. Says nothing about her..

Hello Anonymous
I am trying really hard to come up with a meaningful explanation in response to your statement that you have NEVER 'met eyes' with a man. Here goes, and I am not sure whether my reply and the choices are sad or funny.

1. You have the most unbelievably beautiful breasts that are able to entice all men irresistibly to look downwards at them.
2. You have an such an extremely ugly face that no man can bear to look into your eyes.
3. You have a highly active, imaginable and suggestible mind leading to concomitant rigid beliefs.
4. You need to go back onto your medication.
5. All men are leeringly drawn to short, 4'10" women.
6. You have a severe strabismus or nystagmus in one or both eyes.
7. All men are sexist pigs

I do realise that the first 2 choices can be understood as extremely sexist, disrespectful, inappropriate, insulting and downright horrible but I cannot help myself because I am a male sexist pig (apart from the fact that how else could I respond to your allegation that you have NEVER 'met eyes' with a man).

After due thought and consideration, I think I would go for choice number 7. It's true. All men, including me, are sexist pigs.

What an ignorant, self-indulgent post. You should stop posting so much. You start out ok and then you seem to get more and more emotionally overwrought and you lose all perspective. By this time, you sound like a raving axxhole.

You seriously lose credibility with this low level discourse. Mike, even you can do better. Relax, don't take life so seriously dude. Wow.

You can't legislate against men checking out what women look like, just like you can't legislate women inquiring about a man's line of work or what kind of car he drives. These behaviors have been with us since the Serengeti, haven't they?

This is old news. Dr. Buss from UT Austin, his students, and a whole litany of other Evolutionary Psychologists and Biologists have looked at this type of thing before. Studies of where humans gaze lands on each other has been done before.

Of course, they have not turned it into a feminist, "stop looking at my boobs" study before. Well done! Way to take an innate, evolutionary adaptation to recognize attractiveness and suitability and turn it into visual rape.

This is what happens when social scientists take theories and hypotheses from evolutionary theory and attempt to change human behavior to fit their agenda. Well done, Dr. Gervais. Well done, indeed.

Give it a try buddy. Evolution is not all. Try making a choice to look at all people as fully human. Govern your gaze accordingly.

Oh, of course, men have no control over that. They just look wherever nature tells them,, regardless of consequences.

Fortunately some men see what a turnoff that is, how creepy and laughable it is. Grow up. Maybe you'll get some real action and you wont have to act so desperately out there in the world.
Good luck. Educate yourself.

Experimental demand occurs when the researchers pressure their participants to produce a behavior, instead of allowing them to behave naturally. This study presents lovely example of demand.

Participants were given photographs of women, and told to evaluate their attractiveness. The participants then looked at the women's bodies, and they looked longest at the most attractive women (those with hourglass figures.) This is what we call a manipulation check. The participants simply followed the instructions they were given. This is not evidence of so-called objectification (one of the stupidest concepts ever to be invented by people with nothing better to do). It's evidence that participants are capable of following simple instructions given to them by an experimenter.

Perhaps more important, this study is not evidence of objectification of WOMEN. To test a hypothesis regarding women, participants would have needed to evaluate the attractiveness of pictures of attractive and unattractive women and MEN. The results would need to show some difference between conditions, such as participants looked at women's bodies, but not men's bodies. The study was poorly done and that's why it only made it into a crap journal.

Don't worry, Sarah. Before you know it, you'll lose your sexual attractiveness and all this "objectification" will go away. It may happen sooner, due to weight gain, or a little later, due to the natural aging process. When men stop "ogling" you, I give 10-1 odds that you are going to experience sadness, disappointment and grief. Then you're going to resent all the young, beautiful women who are getting the admiration and positive attention you used to command.

If you turn out to be one of the few women who diets, exercises, grooms herself and maintains her sexuality into middle age, then it will become obvious that you were lying about hating being "objectified."

Think of a young man who is admired for being a star high-school football star. Due to injury or just getting old, his athletic abilities decline and he can't play football anymore. How do you think he would feel if he had spent his football years moaning about objectification? "None of these fans care about me as a person. All they care about is watching me play football. I'm nothing but a sports object to them. Poor, poor me." If he engaged in this kind of pathetic self-pitying, he'd feel even worse once he lost his athletic abilities. But men don't do this. They enjoy the positive attention while it lasts.

I would imagine you dont, likely never did, get positive attention from attractive women. I base this on the fact that attractive women have their pick of men. We simply dont need to pick the oglers.

Im 26, at college. Its 1 thing to be at a club with people your own age when everyone is checking out everyone else. But i get really grossed out by the older men in the streets who seem to simply lack impulse control or something.

And dont try to be nice out of pity or these creeps will see it as an inviration. They are typically unattractive, desperate looking, sorry to say it but old. I think younger attractive en are not doing this activity, they dont need to.

Old men, think how your daughters would feel. Seriously, its gross and immature.

Sorry, Beth, I am a woman. I got lots of attention from men when I was your age. I was grateful and appreciative of every bit of it, even when it came from men to whom I wasn't personally attracted.

Now that I'm in my late 40s, I don't get nearly as much attention (although I've maintained my weight, I work out, and I'm still treated as fairly attractive, at least by men who are my age or older). It's only natural that I'm not as sexy as I used to be, and I accept it.

Believe me, Beth, the day is coming when "creepy old men" are the only ones who will be interested in you, and the good-looking 26 year old men will think you're a "creepy old lady." So, you've got that to look forward to. Enjoy.

I simply can't imagine finding a lecherous man attractive, one who doesnt have intelligence, respect, or self control enough to resist ogling.
I'm sorry this has been your experience. However, I do believe there are better quality men out there. We have to demand respectful behaviour. I think men are evolving somewhat and younger men simply are more intelligent than this and they expect a higher standard of behaviour of themselves.

We need to stop rewarding the creeps. Tell them how gross they are. Reward instead the attractive young guys who are willing to learn, to try to please women, to think beyond their ridiculous little sex drives. 40, 50, 60 are beautiful. Expect more from the menin your life. You deserve it.

Oh, please, spare me your false pity and condescension. Look, you're 26. Your ability to command men's attention has probably already started to decline, and within a few years you won't have to worry about being on the receiving end of that nasty male gaze ever again.

I'd like to point out something interesting from your original reply that shows the hypocrisy of this whole objectification racket. You noted that you enjoy being checked out (ogled) by the attractive young men in the clubs. This is typical of women. It's one of our greatest joys to be regarded as attractive by men to whom we're attracted. That's why makeup, shoes and pretty clothes for women is such as lucrative industry, so we can dress up and attract attention from desirable men.

But woe to the low status man (ugly man, old man, man in poverty, man of color) who dares to defile Princess with his creepy, disgusting eyes. He should know that the display was not intended for him. He should avert his gaze like the worthless, invisible subhuman that he is, or else Princess is going to feel objectified. According to "research" like Gervais', undesirable men have the power to damage women just by looking at them, and they need to be shamed "if you notice your eyes meandering to places they shouldn’t be".

I took her to mean it's about mutuality and equality. A club is known to be sexually charged atmosphere. Young people go there to dance and connect with each other.

The street should not be. Women should be able to walk unharassed. It's natural to feel uncomfortable when you get unwanted sexual attention. It can also be threatening. I think the point is men need to be responsible with their behaviour.

Here are several reasons why theories around the male gaze and objectification are controversial.

1) They portray women as fragile creatures without agency. In this view, merely being looked at by a man has the ability to injure and defile a woman. Promoting this attitude toward women impedes our ability to succeed as equals with men because it suggests that we are weak, incompetent victims instead of capable adults.

2) It shows the typical feminist hatred of sexuality. Of course, feminist hate male sexuality the most, and promote the idea that male sexuality is always predatory and violent. But feminists hate female sexuality too. Their solution is to deny that female sexuality exists at all. They make the ridiculous claim that women who dress sexually in order to attract male attention are not doing so to fulfil their own sexual drives and desires. No, they're doing it because they've been brainwashed by the culture into 'self-objectifying.' When women argue that they enjoy male attention, these feminists cook up evidence to deny women's experiences.

3) It attempts to shame and even criminalize normal, harmless behavior. Obviously, if a person physically assaults another person, that's a crime. But looking at a person cannot hurt anyone. Because looking doesn't cause harm, it is also impossible to prove. "He looked at my breasts." Do you see how easy it is for me to make that claim, and how difficult it is for the man to prove his innocence? As a woman, I can make these false accusations against any man, damaging his reputation.

4) Claims of objectification are used to harm low-status men. As I stated before, almost all women love being gazed at by good-looking young men with good social skills and high-paying jobs. We only become distressed when we're regarded as sexually attractive by men who are ugly, old, or otherwise low-status. Men who are a bit socially awkward are especially targeted and called 'creepy' or 'stalkers' because their shyness makes it difficult for them to maintain eye contact.

In fact I think we're better at getting satisfying sex. I agree with previous posters. I see no problem with expecting men to be responsible about expressing sexual interest. I mean obviously we do draw some lines right. The gaze of a man, attractive or not, does not have power to hurt me. But excessive sexual interest, even in the form of inappropriate gazing, most certainly can damage the self esteem of girls and young women.
I can maintain my power as a woman while still demanding men act with intellectual and emotional maturity in their interactions with women. That empowers me in fact.

Actually you have no right at all to demand that men act with intellectual and emotional maturity in their interactions with women. Apart from two inconvenient facts that a) not all men have the capacity to act with 'intellectual and emotional maturity', and b) the question of who determines what constitutes intellectual and emotional maturity, the only right you have to demand anything at all of, is of yourself. What should empower you is your ability to maintain your dignity and equanimity in the face of what you experience as uncomfortable or even distressing. First principles in valued living and in psychology dictate that you cannot change what is out there. You can only change your attitudes and responses.
There is a legal line between acts which are legal and acts which are illegal. As far as I am aware, a man's staring is not yet illegal. Neither is 'inappropriate gazing' (your words).
The legal definition of sexual harassment is changing all the time but it does not yet include any behaviour by a man which a woman finds offensive, inappropriate or demeaning. There are colleges in the USA which have attempted to introduce this kind of provision as having legal consequences but so far this has not happened. This is dangerous territory because, as a previous poster mentioned, it becomes impossible to establish who looked at whom and how, since a man has to first 'look' to enable him to identify that which he dare not look at. And anyway, people scan the world constantly, the scans covering all sorts of objects and body parts. Are men expected to walk with averted eyes, staring at the ground in order not to offend or to be accused of 'inappropriate gazing'?
The final point to be made is that women have slowly arrogated to themselves the right to define what is and what is not inappropriate, offensive and demeaning. This 'empowering' will inexorably lead to the swing of the pendulum the other way. When that time comes, men will begin to claim harassment on the part of women who walk a certain way, glance a certain way, dress a certain way. And a woman's claim to being harassed will itself become grounds for a man to claim that he is being harassed by groundless harassment on the part of the woman.The then men's movement will slowly force changes, as has the feminist movement forced changes, and we will all be back to the19th century where men determined who were sluts, whores, nymphomaniacs and hysterics.
Rights should always be balanced by obligations.
If any human being wishes to claim a right to be treated a certain way, this right has to be tempered by a concomitant obligation. If I claim a right to be treated with dignity and respect, I have to be sure I am dignified and respectful of those around me and I have to be dignified and respectful in my claiming of such right.

Actually I DO demand, through my expectation of simple respectful behaviour, that the men in my life don't behave like infants without control of their impulses. That's because I respect men and I know they can be held to higher standards of behaviour than is frequently portrayed in the media etc. I simply wouldn't choose to spend time and energy with people who don't choose to behave respectfully towards others.
I have to tell you this includes a lot of men. There are some good guys around.
Btw, I also choose not to chill with racists. Similar reasons. I prefer people into equality and respect.

Your dystopian future scenario gives me a good laugh. Hey dude, don't be so afraid. And actually you CAN change some things, and should. Its called political action. But even within our own small worlds, we can use our power and energy to ask people to look at their behaviour and their assumptions, and if they dont want to change, we can choose to reject them. We can demand many things. We have that much power...and it's fabulous.
Have an awesome day. Check your entitlement.

I enjoyed your response.
Thank you.
Enjoyed the lol.
And if you demand, by virtue of where you place your boundaries, I support you fully. I guess my irritation with your term 'demand' stemmed from what I perceived to be a demand based on there-is-only-one-right-way-and I demand it be done my way. You have a perfect right to chill out with whomever you choose, excluding racists etc. but this right does not extend to forbidding me to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc.
This dude is afraid and he worries about the swing of the pendulum the other way. He worries that the rights of women, so courageously won, may be lost if the various evolving prescriptions and proscriptions emasculate men so much that a backlash becomes inevitable.
Perhaps a simple example might make the point clearer.
Once upon a time, there were exclusive men's clubs which excluded women.
Women demanded entry and were grudgingly granted such entry.
Then women complained about the speech and behaviours in those clubs and the clubs were compelled to institute certain standards of behaviour which conformed to changing standards of what was acceptable and what was not.
Then women demanded and were granted exemptions to the anti-discrimination laws in order to set up exclusive women's gyms so that they could exercise without being 'ogled' by men.
No such exemptions are granted to men to set up exclusive clubs where they can fart, scratch their balls and tell 'inappropriate' jokes.
I hate the word I am about to use but here goes. Men feel disempowered.
And disempowered groups eventually rise up, particularly if they are large in number. Large numbers plus strong feelings of disempowerment and a sense of unfairness are an unhealthy mix. And the targets are always those who are seen to have perpetrated the very changes which lead to these strong feelings.
Thank you for your reply which is still delighting me.

No need to go all legalistic. Noone here is trying to take away your "right" to leer and ogle. We can't control that. Only you can. And we wish you would because we don't like it. But clearly you have no intention of considering how your personal behaviour affects others. Clearly you have a lot invested in fighting for it. Perhaps your masculinity is threatened. Who knows?
So, over and out. As another poster said earlier, some men are just dinsoaurs, beyond learning or something like that.
Good luck to you.

Hello Beth, I am an older man who, at 67, has had to accommodate all sorts of social change. First it was anti-racism, then anti-sexism, then homophobia, weightism, phallocentricism, heteronormativism, and a host of other isms to further complicate my life.
Somewhere along the line, I learnt about ageism.
Hhhhhhmmmmm. A valid and recognised ism, worthy of the same respect as all the other isms.
Let me use all the currently favoured words to comment as follows.
Your talk of older men in the streets is inappropriate, offensive and abusive. It is discriminatory, stereotyping, sexist, ageist, and disrespects the older subset of the male gender.
When you talk further about them as creeps, that kind of name-calling is insulting and degrading, and it becomes harassment, abuse and a vile form of bigotry and hate-speech.
I get really grossed out by young 26 year-old women who simply lack impulse control or something and think they can say whatever they wish.
Take a lesson from a 67 year old patriarchal male.
Feel free to talk all you wish about yourself, your feelings and your experiences, provided you own your own stuff. Be very careful when you label and judge others. All labels and judgements reflect more on the person doing the judging than on the object of judgement.

I'm glad you addressed this. The ageism in the feminists' comments here is really ugly. Sadly for them, all these young women are going to find themselves the victims of ageism before they know it. It's funny how young people imagine they're never going to grow old.

The other ugly undercurrents here are racism and classism. Feminists are not quite as open about it as they are about their distain for older men, but you can catch a whiff of it in phrases like 'men on the streets.' This really means that they mainly object to being looked at by men in poverty and men of color.

I do think it's a bit of a stretch to equate men "on the street" with impoverished men. The young woman's superior attitude is a bit offputting.. But I think there is validity to the point that there is mutuality and perhaps? equality when one goes out dressed up to a club.

And women don't want to be subjected to leering while out picking up groceries for example. I think that's all that was meant.

Also, you have a very reductive idea of who feminists are. Feminism is based in equality, and as a result many feminists are quite cognizant of power relations in many areas, and hopefully with openness to always complicating that picture, making it more complete.

When I read some of the posts here, I don't see just one feminist view, as you seem to suggest. We're more complicated than that. And there are just too many of us.

Don't worry guys, you can still ogle women. Unfortunately we can't really stop you. We can only try toeducate you, tell you how it affects us, hope you might see the benefits of treating women like full human beings. Some men are just super resistant. Ladies, dont be afraid to date younger men. Its my experience that the dinosaurs will never get it. Young men are frequently less desperate for sex and companionship, more attuned to what women want.

The best lovers are the most attuned to what women want. You can't expect someone who can't control his gaze on the street to have much , ahem, physical control in bed. I come for real men. Midlife crises are boring. And that's what lechers look like. Skeevy, desperate.
Right on sister. Let's tell men we want good sex, not immature boys with control issues.
Love it.